Political Diary

New Delhi, 26 February 2010

Indo-Pak Frost

ICE THAWS, NO MELT IN DISTRUST

By Poonam I Kaushish

The Indo-Pak ice was finally broken after a 14-month long hiatus post 26/11. But sadly it did not end up melting the over six decades of distrust between the warring neighbours. It is a moot point when the deep chill will thaw!

If one expected that the first standalone engagement with Islamabad would pick up the threads of a frayed relationship and help ``reduce the trust deficit’’ it was not to be. At least underscore the importance of Islamabad adhering to its commitment to prevent its territory from being used by anti-India elements one was totally off the mark. Instead, the Foreign Secretary level talks not only ended as just talks. Worse, in acrimonious tu-tu-mein-mein on ‘point scoring’ with both sides sticking to their guns.

Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir made plain that Kashmir was the main focus. ““Kashmir was discussed extensively... It is unrealistic to link 26/11 to talks...” Adding salt to New Delhi’s injury, he averred, “We are not desperate for dialogue. India doesn’t need to lecture us on what needs to be done. Or demand that Pakistan should do this or that… India has had one 26/11, we have had a 1000 Mumbais.” Reacting to India’s demand to arrest Hafiz Saeed, he added. “Docket on Hafiz Saeed is a piece of literature not dossier”. (Sic)

True, though New Delhi went with an “open mind” to “clear the air and seek to take a first step even if it is small towards opening the possibility for future dialogue,” it ended accusing Islamabad of “getting a briefing from the men in khaki, read military. Asserted Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, "We told Pakistan that trust and confidence should be restored.” Towards that end, Islamabad needed to curb all terrorists operating from its territory. We handed over three dossiers containing names of 34 terrorists wanted in India, including LeT chief Hafiz Saeed.”

Predictably, the failed talks have evoked strong opinion for and against any further dialogue. While the proponents for dialogue led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh subscribe to Winston Churchill diktat jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Given that a country can never afford to take a position where it refuses to talk to a nation. By snubbing Islamabad, New Delhi was diminishing its influence over Pakistan’s ongoing cross-border terrorism. Also, talking was significant not for its goals but for the process itself.

Aversely, by not talking New Delhi would only strengthen and embolden the jehadis to continue fomenting trouble. Also, given the fast changing developments within Pakistan, the increasing strife, trouble in SWAT, rise of Taliban and its impact on India, there was no option. As one could not put it past Pakistan to use its role in Afghanistan to press the US to mediate on Kashmir. Already Washington, which brokered the “structured” talks has welcomed that the ball has been set rolling.

Asserted a senior foreign official. “The best thing that has come out of the talks is that there will be the start of more dialogues, both at the official and political levels. The idea, is to draw Pakistan into a dialogue and establish an effective channel of communication so that Islamabad can assist India-- to get it to cooperate and work together on terrorism rather than reading out the riot act”. Really? Or is this simply wishful thinking?

On the flip side, as Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj in a chat with me asserted, “I told the Prime Minister three months ago and Nirupama Rao last week that by resuming talks the Government was ‘undercutting' its 26/11 stance that it would only restart the dialogue with Islamabad after it came down on terror groups based on its soil. Not only was the BJP, but also public opinion against it.” Added an expert, "Yes, you have to talk to a neighbour, but the question is: On what? And how? Believe me, the dialogue process is going to have a very thin membrane of political backing in India."  Their fears seem to be coming true.

Needless to say the Government has to come clean on why talks were held at all. Given that the dialogue was downgraded to a point of ‘unlikely to produce any meaningful results’ even before they started. The cat was let out by Home Minister Chidambaram. “I am neither optimistic nor convinced about Islamabad’s willingness to act against terrorism”.  

Or was it to appease the US? Wherein New Delhi could claim that the talks were confined to a discussion on the action taken by Islamabad against terrorism. And Pakistan could assert that its stand on composite dialogue stood vindicated by raising Kashmir and India’s non-adherence on sharing of river waters

Be that as it may, New Delhi must come to terms with the fact that the jihadis are opposed to any reconciliation between India and Pakistan. The Pune terror attack was only to be expected once the Government announced its decision to resume official-level talks with Pakistan. Alongside, there are elements within the Pakistan Establishment, read Army and ISI who are equally opposed to normalisation of bilateral relationship based on a practical and pragmatic resolution of longstanding disputes. Witness the ease with which Hafiz Saeed was allowed to spew venom against India at a recent public rally in Lahore.

Indeed, it is not in the realm of impossibility that the very critics in Pakistan of India's unwillingness to resume the official-level dialogue may be behind the terror attacks given their agenda to keep New Delhi permanently off balance, damning India for not talking and damning it if it tries to.

Besides, the relationship continues to run the risk of coming asunder again if another Mumbai-scale terror attack is launched from Pakistan. It will not be business as usual, say sources. The Indian agenda is chock-full of terror concerns, as elucidated by Home Minister Chidambaram. More. New Delhi must beware that it does not dove-tail its Pak policy to US’s Af-Pak strategy. Now that Washington has reconciled to Islamabad-backed Afghan Taliban and made plain its dependence on the ISI and Army.For when US departs Afghanistan, we would be saddled with ‘Pakistan on steroids’ and a Taliban Afganistan.

What next? True, South Block has no illusions about any dramatic transformation in Islamabad’s policy. However, it needs an all-encompassing and multi-pronged strategy to deal with it. The Government and its security agencies need to remain ever vigilant, be one step ahead of the jihadis and act promptly vis-a-vis terror attacks and cross-border terrorism. It needs to get a no-nonsense message across to Islamabad that ignoring New Delhi’s concerns would be by at its own peril. At the same time, Islamabad needs to understand that New Delhi patience should not be mistaken for weakness. Given that it has paid the price for misreading India thrice over vis-a-vis the Indo-Pak wars.

The bottom line? India needs to be reassured on its terror concerns for the relationship to move to the next level. Islamabad must unravel the full conspiracy behind the Mumbai attack, deny sanctuary to all terrorist groups that operate from its soil, put the trial of Lakhvi and 6 others on a fast track and handover Hafiz Saeed to India. As also rein JuD leader Hafiz Makki who ahead of the Pune attack had stated that three Indian cities would be targeted by “jihadis to teach India a lesson”. The taste of the pudding is in the eating.

Simultaneously the Governments need to shape domestic public opinion in a direction that would offer it some domestic leeway for diplomatic manoeuvre. Further, if South Block feels that it is better for India and Pakistan to hold dialogue then it should be continuous rather than in fits and starts.

It needs to be remembered that without fundamental democratic reform, there can be no permanent solution to patronage of terror by one or more of Pakistan’s multiple power-centres. Islamabad needs to do a lot more than just generating artificial illusions. Or else, the chill will only end up as frozen! ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 20 February 2010

Deadly Naxalites

TALK  IS  CHEAP

By Poonam I Kaushish

How much value does the Indian State put on the lives of its soldiers and law-enforcers? Five attacks on security forces in 6 months, 52  jawans killed, scores injured and  arms looted. On the flip side, only three crackdowns on Maoist dens, just three suspected guerrillas killed, 190 arrested of which 47 released to secure the freedom of 2 abducted officials.  The latest being the capitulation by the Jharkhand Government Maoists  to free 14 jailed Naxals in exchange for an abducted Block Development Officer underscores once again that we not only have no concrete plans to tackle Naxal violence., worse only talk big about terror. But do nothing. Forgetting, that talk is cheap!

Significantly, what once was only a peripheral threat to the Indian State has now reached a critical mass. According to Government sources, the insurgency, which started in 1967 as a peasant uprising, has now spread to 20 of India’s 28 states and 223 districts,– and is showing no signs of exhaustion. A staggering 1524 people, more than three times the number killed by jihadi’s in Kashmir. According to official numbers Naxalite-Maoist violence had killed 1128 people by the end of June 2009. The death toll for 2008 was 1591.

Worse, as the vigour of the Reds grows from strength to strength becoming mightier and deadlier with each killing, the helplessness of the police and paramilitary forces is obvious. No less than PM Manmohan Singh recently confessed that the Naxals were the greatest security threat and said that security forces were failing to halt it. Exposing that the scales are tipped in favour of the Red brigade.

Not only that. Shockingly, the Naxals continue to cock a snook at Home Minister Chidabaram’s  overtures to surrender arms, abjure violence and hold talks with the Government on any issuesat a meeting with Chief Ministers of Maoist-infested West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and Orissa last month. Instead they rebutted his plea with another deadly attack.

Sadly, successive  Government’s at the Centre and States have missed the wood for the trees. Vacillating between a state of denial or are prone to passing the buck. . While the States  aver  that central forces are not adequately trained or prepared to meet the Maoist challenge, the Centre counters by stating that law and order is a state subject. Sic. In this war of words, a helpless Manmohan Singh admitted that about 394,000 posts, about 20% per cent of the sanctioned posts in the State police forces are lying vacant.

The Maoist game plan, according to intelligence officers, is to physically occupy the countryside (swathes of land in 7 States have already slipped beyond State control) and surround the cities until they can force regime change. Simultaneously, they want to transmute the social structure through the barrel of the gun and are getting moral & material support from the Nepal, Pakistan’s ISI and China. Their ambition is to have a ‘red corridor’ from Pashupati to Tirupati ,

According to the Director of the Institute for Conflict Management “the forces do not have the strength in numbers, training, transportation and arms to gain control over such vast swaths of territory. Until there’s a steady capacity-building, all deployments will be irrational. It will just be a nibbling away at the peripheries, and a lot of security forces will be killed.”

Adds a CID official, it is high time the forces went for an “intelligence-backed guerrilla operation wherein one can beat guerrillas by fighting like a guerrilla. It’s an ideal situation for Cobra operation under the direct command and control of CRPF.” The Government needs to remember  that nobody want to fight Naxals with a death band on forehead. "We do not want to perpetuate a situation like a civil war. A strong head, a stronger heart and staying power", is paramount he adds.

Arguably, if around 80%  per cent of the police budget in all Sates is used for salaries, allowances and pensions, the only way to ensure proper training is to up the budgets earmarked for infrastructure and training. Look at two absurdities. The national average of the police-population ratio is about 1.3 policemen per 10,000 citizens. Yet in Bihar, a Naxal-prone State, the ratio of policemen to the public per 10,000 is a meagre 0.9 i.e hardly one policeman for 10,000 people.

Against the backdrop, that the Maoists work along a specific asymmetrical terrain and use the tactic of ‘moving among people as a fish swims in the sea’. The need of the hour is effective police response, effective intelligence gathering, impart quality training in jungle and guerrilla warfare, ensuring that a policeman always retains his weapons, increasing the financial allocation for anti-Naxal operations and a multi-pronged strategy with an emphasis on socio-economic development.

More. There is an urgent need for the badly-affected States to undertake joint operations and set up joint unified commands for continuous monitoring of the arms profile of various Naxal groups, as the Home Minister highlighted during his meeting with the CMs. Urgently needed alongwith this, is identification of sources and networks, coordinated intelligence gathering, and a well-equipped police force, if this grave security threat is to be combatted. 

Along with tackling the lacunae in the Naxal’s ideological framework and simultaneously launch a political offensive with a humanistic vision. Two, the distortions in the social system need to be dealt with on a war footing, to alleviate poverty, ensure speedy development and enforce law and order strictly. Three, take up land reforms with a fresh revolutionary zeal and approach. Look at the present dichotomy. With a majority of India’s population engaged in agricultural pursuits, one would expect the tillers to be rich. Instead, they are not only poor but continue to be at the mercy of the rich landlords.

A counter strategy is also required for the urban locations where sympathy for the Naxal cause has been gathering momentum for some time and finding some resonance. New Delhi fails to realize that normal deterrence doesn’t work against a faceless and fearless enemy who has no borders and no scruples. When the State’s existence is in peril, the only way to hit back is to carry the fight into the enemy camp effectively. It is not enough to assert ‘we have might and muscle. One has to display that power. Which doctor will want to go back to an area, or such areas where there is a threat to life, family.

What next? Much will depend upon the Government’s willingness to acknowledge without any sugar-coating that India is ensnared in the vicious grip of terror. Already prolonged inaction has proved much too costly. The Centre may have to launch major offensives to drive home the message that terror is not a zero-sum game and that India has no use for a live terrorist.  A long and arduous battle lies ahead. Success will depend not only on the dedication and devotion of the ground forces but also on the commitment of our polity to eradicate this scourge.  All need to remember that failure can exact an unacceptable cost!  INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 13 February 2010

Beyond Muslim Quotas

COURT: K(H)ANNOT  DO

By Poonam I Kaushish

Religion clearly is the flavor of the week. A sad reflection of our times, where quotas and queues are the all-season favourites. And people compartmentalized for sacrifice at the altar of creed politics. Be it Shiv Sena’s rabble-rousing over Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan “Indianess” and trying strong-arm tactics to stall his much-hyped film ‘My name is Khan’ in Mumbai.  Or State Government’s merrily converting positive affirmation into vote percentage. No matter, that it is the most un-Indian thing to do and pushes India back a century!

Kudos to the Andhra Pradesh High Court for striking down the Congress State Government’s Muslim Quota Bill providing 4% reservation to the 15 backward groups of Muslims in education & Government jobs passed in July 2007,. Describing it as “unsustainable” as it was religion-specific and potentially encouraged conversions, a 7-member Bench of the Court rejected the bill by 5 to 2 votes and observed: “The recommendations of the AP Backward Classes Commission -- on which the quota law had been based is unscientific.

“The Commission neither evolved any criteria nor published these before inviting objections. It had merely stated it had followed the two criteria evolved by the Mandal Commission for identification of (Socially Economic Backward Classes) SEBCs among non-Hindu community. The investigation by the panel was not based on real facts, data or analysis and without proper survey wherein the Commission limited its survey to 6 districts in three days.”

But the last word has still to be said. Recall, Recall, in 2004 and 2005 the State Government had earmarked 5% reservations for the entire Muslim community (excluding the creamy layer) first by issuing a Government order and subsequently by promulgating an ordinance. But both times the Andhra Pradesh High Court played spoilsport and struck it down as the overall reservations would exceed the ceiling. The Government then declared 15 Muslim groups as backward and enacted another law in 2007 that was struck down last week. The Muslims account for about 9% of the 76 m population in Andhra.

If this rap to a State was not bad news, the West Bengal CPM Government jumped feet first and announced 10% reservation in jobs for socially and educationally backward Muslims in the State. On the facetious plea that the yardstick of a modern democracy in measuring its success was status and welfare of the smallest of minorities. Plainly, that with polls just a year away it desperately needs the minority votes to stay in power. Never mind that the status of Muslims in the State is way down the social and economic ladder, according to the Sachar Committee report.

The moot point is clear. When does minorityism supercede equality assured by our Constitution? Are quotas based on religion and community the answer for maintaining India’s social fabric? And more important, it’s crucial harmony? How does it better the lot of the mass of Muslims, if a few persons get jobs? Is the Muslim identity distinct from that of the Indian? Is he an Indian Muslim or a Muslim Indian?

Importantly, reservation per se goes against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. It not only divides the people but also harms national unity, integrity and fraternity. Besides, violating the doctrine of secularism that grants equal rights to all citizens irrespective of their religion. We must keep in mind that the framers of the Constitution had explicitly decided against religion-based reservations.

Besides, backward Muslims, who form the bulk of the community, have already been included in the list of OBCs, entitled for reservations on the basis of their socio-economic condition. Which is within the Constitutional framework. Karnataka has done precisely that as there is no empirical evidence or data or population figures.

There is no gainsaying, that the Government’s fundamental mission is to uplift the poor and the backward classes, educate and provide them equal opportunities. However, the problem arises when our netagan in their quest for votes recklessly calculate reservation on the basis of labelling the minorities, Muslims and Christians, as backward or dalits for availing the quotas. Knowing full well that Islam does not accept any casteism and therefore no Islamic country provides reservations to the poor among the Muslims by labelling them dalits or backwards.

Besides, we also need to remember that if reservations based on castes are bad, affirmative action on communal basis is horrendous. It cannot be justified by ominous reasoning that it would bring the Muslims into the mainstream and ensure harmony between the majority and the minority communities. Moreover, it would prevent Muslims from being exploited any more as vote-banks by the so-called secular parties.

True, Muslims, like Hispanic and Afro-Americans in the US, lag behind in socio-economic development. Data collated by Sachar and others show that socio-economic indicators for Muslims were below those for OBCs in many cases. (Recall also that most well-to-do Muslims, barring their lowest rung, left for Pakistan in 1947, a fact overlooked by Sachar) About 59% were illiterate, only 10% went to school and a mere 8% opted for higher education. Worse, even as they were vastly under-represented in official jobs, they were grossly over-represented in India’s prison population.

But, an economic criteria, rather than religious identity, should form the basis of a reservation policy. One way forward would be introducing a deprivation index wherein points are awarded for disadvantages based on caste, community, gender, type of schooling and family background. Which would take into account different indicators of inequality among the needy from religious and ethnic minorities for affirmative action.

Tragically, so blinded are our politicians in their quest for power that none can see the Frankenstein they recklessly continue to create. By giving legitimacy to a communal quota, religious bigotry at its most ferocious could end up in carving once more a blood-stained path across our country. Clearly, this could sow the poisonous seeds for a new communal movement and separate electorates inspired by the two-nation theory that tragically led to India’s partition.

What next? Unless we stem the rot, the day is not far when Muslims could once again demand communal representation both in the legislative assemblies of the States and in Parliament. It must desist from sowing the seeds of another partition.

In the ultimate, our petty power-at all-cost polity has to think beyond vote-bank politics and look at the perilous implications of their decisions. Vote-bank politics must not be allowed to continue recklessly and play havoc with India’s unity and integrity and progress. The Government must rethink the entire reservation policy and stop the blind application of quotas. Time to think beyond quotes and queues and put its foot down and assert: Reservations K(h)annot do! ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Political Diary 

New Delhi, 6 February 2010

I Belong To India

WHO IS SHIV SENA TO STOP ME?

By Poonam I Kaushish

Circa pre-1947: India, a conglomerate of 565 States, resounded to the battle cry of “throw out the British”. Sprinkled with a heavy dose of nationalism, all Bharatvasis pledged to unite the country more than ever before.

Circa 2008-10: Mera Bharat Mahan comprising 28 States is about throwing out the “outsider aam aadmi” from respective States. Infused with loads of patriotic provincial chaap, all promising to make their respective States more local than ever before.  

The ‘Maharashtra for Maharashtrians’ and “throw out the North Indians” bugle first sounded by Shiv Sena’s “paper tiger” Bal Thackeray’s estranged nephew Raj’s non-descript Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) in February 2008 unleashed a volley of regionalism in Mumbai and the rest of the State. The baton of Amchee Maharashtrians was picked up by cousin Udhav’s Sena last week which not only sent India’s commercial Capital into a tail spin but also unleashed a volley of vitriolic tu-tu-mein-mein between the SS and the Congress.

All over Bollywood superstar and Indian Premier League (IPL) team owner Shahrukh Khan’s criticism of the exclusion of Pakistani cricketers from the IPL. Predictably an incensed Sena, accustomed to having things all its own way followed its set pattern: abused Khan for being “Pakistani”, tore down posters of his new movie and intimidated theatre owners from screening the film till he apologised. Equally familiarly, the police did not clamp down on the violence.

The raging controversy hit a new low following “Congress Prince” Rahul Gandhi assertion “Mumbai belonged to all Indians.” A livid Sena countered, “he is a frustrated bachelor.” Next it targeted his mother Sonia’s foreign origin, “Mumbai may belong to all Indians but how can it belong to an Italian mummy.” Shot back the Congress “Bal Thackeray is senile.”

Caught in the cross-fire a rattled Shahrukh asserted, “If there is an issue with me you have to sort it out with me”. It remains to be seen if Khan will do a Karan Johar and apologise in person. Recall, how Johar bent over backwards to placate Raj Thackeray when he objected to Wake Up Sid being set in “Bombay and promised changes in the script as well as in all future scripts.

Amidst the mayhem, trust our netagan to use this opportunity to play the ‘insider-outsider’ game to their electoral advantage. True, both the Congress and BJP have come out against the Shiv Sena’s chauvinism on Mumbai. Not because they have rediscovered nationalistic fervor but to exploit the issue for their own selfish gains and maximize their political return, read votes Specially, the ‘migrant’ Bihari votes in the forthcoming Bihar Assembly polls. No matter that they only stoke the flames of hatred and pit the aam Bharatvasi against each other. As also revive the time old controversy of “sons of the soil” demand once again. 

While the Congress, in theory, is committed to one-India-all-Indians view, in practice, it has played copycat politics. Remember last month its State Government issued a decree that taxi drivers in Mumbai should speak and read Marathi and have been domiciled in the city for over 15 years to get new licences. Only to hastily backtrack and reiterate that these requirements were a part of an old law. Sic. Also recall, how it turned a blind eye to the MNS violence against north Indians and humoured it against bête noir SS in the run-up to the Maharashtra Assembly polls in 2009.

The BJP and RSS’s opposition to ally Sena stems from a different form of chauvinism, one that talks of Akhand Bharat and excludes non-Hindus from its concept of citizenship and nationhood. “India is one from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.” It cannot accept Mumbai, or another city, belonging only to a sub-set of the nation.

Importantly, the moot point is not whether our rulers should be allowed to play havoc with the rule of law? But encompasses the wider question of ‘outsider’ versus ‘insider.’ A concept that seeped in when States were formed on a linguistic basis and sowed the seeds of sub-nationalism. Pride in the mother tongue became a chauvinistic badge of honour and led people to assume that they had the first lien on the economic gains. ‘Others’ were second class.

However, Constitutionally, Article 16 is clear. It provides: “There shall be equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.” Sadly, opinions have deferred right from the Constituent Assembly debate. Some leaders felt that the States should have the unfettered right to give employment to locals. Not a few quibbled about the years of residence, should it be 10 or 50 years.  Others felt that every citizen must be made to feel a citizen of the country and not a particular State.  

From then to now the controversy continues. Regionalism first raised its ugly head in Tamil Nadu in the early 60s, where the alienation of the people from the Centre led to the birth of the DMK, which later split into the AIADMK and other groups. It then moved to Maharashtra where Thackeray’s SS became the self-styled champion of the ‘Marathi manoos' whereby everyone in Mumbai was an `outsider' except the 28% Maharashtrians. It attacked skilled labourers from the south who were branded as "lungi-wallas.” Now it’s the North Indian, UP bhaiya or Bihari migrant. 

Assam followed in the 70’s when the All Assam Students Union (AASU) started an “oust all illegal migrants from Bangladesh” movement and won the elections. In nearby Nagaland too, the students want all non-Nagas out. Regionalism had arrived. In 2003, Assam resounded to parochialism again when the locals stopped 20,000 Biharis from taking a recruitment test in Guwahati. The Biharis retaliated by stopping trains from the N-East, dragged out the people, killed some and beat the rest. The Assamese hit back and killing more Biharis. The Delhi Chief Minister recently too took up cudgels against the influx of Biharis and Purabias.

More. Mandalisation in the 90’s unleashed the Made in India leaders all with a common USP: “We are the locals, Delhi is doorust – an outsider.” Be it Badal’s Akali Dal in Punjab, N.T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam in Andhra, Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool and Naveen Patnaik’s BJD in Orissa.

Thus, with both people and parties making regionalism their mantra, it gave a fillip to the “sons of soil” issue. The local youth demanded “reservation” of jobs in their area, and to some extent rightly too. Arguably, why should people from outside a particular State apply for menial jobs? If outsiders corner jobs of sweepers or helpers as in the case of the Railways, where should the locals go for their bread and butter?

The tragedy is that now we are Marathas, Tamilians or Biharis first and Indians next. Worse, our polity has chipped away at the reality of a united and integrated India preferring to take the regional route and basking in the ignorance of the emotionally trapped, majorly illiterate, locals. Does this mean people in India cannot live and work in a different city? Think. Only a Himachal-born can buy land in the State. Why? Is this a nation marching towards progress in its 60^th year of Independence?

What next? First, the Government should come up with a law to ban parties trying to divide the country on regional lines. True, language and cultures need to be protected but should not be used to divide people. There must be a legal provision allowing people of one State to earn their livelihood in any part of the country. Second, movement of human capital and resources is necessary to prevent stagnation from creeping into the body politic.

Importantly, the periodic outbursts of outsider’ vitriol and violence witnessed in Mumbai and other parts of the country will not end unless the ‘sons of soil’ conception and practice of goonda politics change. Unless democracy is envisaged as a genuinely inclusive and participatory project, with an attendant focus on broadening the socio-economic pie and making development more equitable across geographies and communities.

Clearly, regionalism will lead to disintegration of the country. It does not behove anyone to ignore the basic philosophy of India’s unity and integrity and impose curfew on “outsiders”. Let politics be a healthy exercise to unite, not divide. Every citizen of India is a “local of India.”  ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)